Bus Lane PCN Shepherd's Bush Rd, Southbund Offside on motorbike (LBHF), Help appreciated! - FIRST DRAFT LETTER NOW ADDED - with photos etc Options

[luke haig]

Hi
Could really do with your help.
Received a PCN for being in a bus lane on my motorbike on Shepherd Bush rd / Southbound.

I have access to the video but have included the key frames here in a photo.
It shows me overtaking a stationary vehicle (looks like a coach) this vehicle is blocking the view of the sign indicating the confusing bus lane layout.
After the couch I am on the outside of the cars where a motorbike would normally be, but then am on a bus lane on the right hand side which is about 15 meters long or so.
I can't imagine how I'd not be 'caught' in this bus lane or how I could've known to take any other route.
And once in the bus lane the logical, safest and quickest way to get off it was the route i took.

Images from video:




View on google maps:
https://goo.gl/maps/KH3tH5AeDGF2


Similar case that was 'won' but Im concerned as it says they appeared in person, so sounds like they might have had their initial appeal turned down until they took it to court?:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t97706.html
Reason for allowing was;
"the bus lane sign was obscured by a vehicle to the left of the appellant's vehicle.
The CCTV footage shows a coach parked on the left, it seems the coach was parked in a position so as to obscure from view the bus lane sign."


My pcn:







Image from google: shows bus lane sign placed after the start of the bus lane taper. ALso shows how it would be hidden if a higher sided vehicle were in that lane (as is shown in my video footage and screenshots.)


Should i literally copy the key phrases from the winning court case namely the obscured signage. I would like to get this quashed as soon and as simply as I can.
I dont want to waste time explaining any logical reasons why this layout is ridiculous, just whatever I need to put that will most likely get the ticket cancelled.

Your time appreciated.

ps - should i include printouts of these images and diagrams along with my challenge.

This post has been edited by luke haig: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 - 16:57

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

When I phoned them they said the amount on the letter was 'a mistake' should have been the discounted amount.
I thought I'd already challenged and the next step would be the adjudication. But it seems I need to wait for another 'notification to owner', then challenge it again, then wait 56 days for what I'd expect to be another refusal as its coming from the same department as the previous challenge. Then I expect I could go to adjudication.

That isn't right - postal PCNs/CCTV only have one appeal. What did they say exactly? Are they reissuing the rejection with the correct amount? That then gives you a decision to make.

[luke haig]

I received the first PCN in April (see first post), I challenged within 21 days (with email confirmation).
Then 3 months later I received a Refusal letter (Posted attached photo of letter today in previous message)
The letter says if I want to challenge I need to wait for an 'Enforcement Notice' which I can then make a 'formal challenge', then if this is refused I can go to an adjudicator.....

On the phone they said the amount £130 they put on the current letter was a mistake and should've been the discounted £65, which I could pay now over the phone. THey will not be sending an amended letter, but if I do not pay this 'now' the Enforcement notice that would be sent on the 5th August will be for the full £130.

When I phoned them they said the amount on the letter was 'a mistake' should have been the discounted amount.
I thought I'd already challenged and the next step would be the adjudication. But it seems I need to wait for another 'notification to owner', then challenge it again, then wait 56 days for what I'd expect to be another refusal as its coming from the same department as the previous challenge. Then I expect I could go to adjudication.

That isn't right - postal PCNs/CCTV only have one appeal. What did they say exactly? Are they reissuing the rejection with the correct amount? That then gives you a decision to make.

[Incandescent]

London bus lane regulations allows for the issue of an Enforcement Notice and is better, because you can challenge and still get the discount offered, whereas in the rest of the UK, any appeal is considered formal and the discount is not re-offered. Many councils are exceptionally ruthless and venal on this aspect, like Nottingham, Coventry, and Brighton.

[luke haig]

Hi
So it seems this bus lane location is a famous cash cow, have seen a number of threads on it and also successful cases from adjudications.
Apparently the current position of the bus lane sign as shown in google screen shot (after the start of the bus lane taper) is not legally correct.
The original placement which the council proposed is shown on their plan which also includes a big 'KEEP CLEAR' area prior to the sign and taper.

It appears that the council may be using this plan as their evidence instead of actual current sign placements (after the taper & no KEEP CLEAR area)

Should I include this plan and reasoning when I send my upcoming 'formal challenge' along with my previous challenges.
Also should I refer to other cases that have had their cases approved by the adjudicators?

Thanks for your time.

*currently awaiting the 'enforcement notice'

[luke haig]

'Enforcement Notice' now received (the initial PCN was issued over 4 months ago,)
I thought I'd already gone through this but apparently this is the 'official representation' now at £130.
HELP APPRECIATED.

Along with all my previous submitted statements & diagrams should I also include the planning diagram as shown in my previous comment. It shows how the council submitted the plans for the bus lane set up WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS HOW IT ACTUALLY IS (as shown in google views).

And when completing the form should i select |1. There was no breach of the bus lane regulations - please explain why the contravention did not occur"

Wonder how long this may drag on until I receive the chance to take it to appeal to someone that may actually have the integrity to cancel this.

[luke haig]

Should I include the original planning document (a in my previous comment, 2 posts back) to my reply to this enforcement notice, or should i save it to present to the appeal which would come after.

[John U.K.]

What is the source of this plan? An approved plannning application? Or attached to the traffic management order setting up the 'bus lane?

See what others say, but I think you have to put it to the Council for them to disprove (not you attempt to prove with their plan)... something like...

It would appear that the placing of the sign TSRGD No. [whatever the number is] does not conform with theCouncil's own plans (and if true) nor the terms of TSRGD 2016.

[luke haig]

The plan comes from another members challenge.
Full details here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t=0#entry950552


Copy and pasted some here for quick reference:
"
Several adjudicators i.e. when presented with all the facts have ruled this lane to be non-compliant with the authorised plan and have cited two legal precedents: the Herron Court of Appeal case and Beatson J in the Oxfordshire case.

I am, of course, mindful of the case of The Queen on the Application of Herron and Parking Appeals Limited -v- The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 905 in which the Court of Appeal held that the proper approach to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 is purposive. Although the Court was dealing with parking restrictions, which are imposed by applicable traffic management orders, the purpose of signage etc required by Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 or by analogy to a Special Authorisation of the Secretary of State under Section 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is merely to convey adequate information to motorists as to the relevant restriction. Therefore, substantial compliance with the statutory specifications in the 2002 Regulations (and by analogy to a Special Authorisation) suffices - so long as the signage adequately informs motorists of the restriction, and (of course) does not mislead. The Court made clear that substantial compliance is a very different thing from exact compliance subject to the principle of de minimis. A wholly absent marking is however, very different from a faded marking or one varied a little beyond that specifically permitted by the Regulations or Special Authorisation.


----------------------------------

I have to make a decision based on the evidence before me and a decision on that evidence has to be made on a balance of probabilities.
Does the signage convey the practical effect of the prohibition or is it misleading to an ordinary, reasonable motorist?
It was held in the case of Oxfordshire County Council and The Bus Lane Adjudicator and Shaun Duffy (2010) that If the signage is prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or if it is authorised by the Secretary of State and it is not placed where it cannot be seen and not obscured, there must be strong reasons for saying the signage does not provide adequate information.
In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
This is an off-side bus lane and the local authority has received Secretary of State Approval
..............................

I do accept however that the off-side sign is located in a different position to that indicated in the plan, to which the Secretary of State has given approval.
I find that its location probably does not give sufficient warning of an impending off-side bus lane because the sign is located after the commencement of that bus lane.
I will therefore allow the appeal.

In a nutshell:

1. A DfT authorisation was given on 24th October 2006.
2. This plan was changed in October 2006. Unauthorised.
3. The changes include the extension of the taper so that the "warning" sign now appears after taper begins; the removal of the deflection arrow; the lack of a solid white line (1049) to indicate the boundary of the lane; the removal of the KEEP CLEAR signs, the presence of which they refer to as significant in a recent NOR, even though they have been removed!
4. The DFT authorisation, itself, is contrary to their own advice in TSM Chapter 3 at page 130 ff.

This scam and cash cow has to stop. The only way, as I see it, is to generate as much publicity as the Moor End case so that PATAS and DFT conduct a site inspection."

[John U.K.]

Should I include the original planning document (a in my previous comment, 2 posts back) to my reply to this enforcement notice, or should i save it to present to the appeal which would come after.

Hmm. Tricky question.

First, has anything changed since Hippo's quoted case in 2014? You need to check carefully. It would be helpful to find the case number and decision in the LT register.

Then you can either in your reps.
a) say in general terms something along the lines of Furthermore, the Council will be awar that several adjudicators have ruled that the layout, signage and markings at this site fail to comply with DfT guidance or indeed the DfT authorisation from this site.
OR
b) say the above and refer to and enclose the complete decision from which Hippo quotes.

I think (b) may be more likely to lead H&F to accept the reps (in their shoes, I wouldn't want you going off to tribunal and getting another blasting) but you may prefer to increase you chances of going to adjudication by using (a).
---------------------

Either way, I think you need to search the tribunal register (you can use Shepherds Bush Road as search term but make sure cases thrown up refer to this particular stretch of bus lane) for all cases since 2014 involving this notorious bus lane. Some will have been refused and these are just as important as those that have been allowed, not merely for showing the numerical strengths of each side (allow, refuse, DNC) but to see what reasoning was used after the quoted case to refuse an appeal. Work out how the reasonings (whether for allow or refusal) might be relevant or applicable to your case.

As always, see what others say, post your draft reps here for advice or comment, but on no account miss deadlines.

This post has been edited by John U.K.: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 18:50

[luke haig]

My 'ENFORCEMENT NOTICE' appeal.
FEEDBACK APPRECIATED.
Should I add anywhere a complaint about the amount of time this is taking me.(4 months+ so far).

------------------------

To Whom it may concern
I was riding my motorbike down Shepherd Bush Rd / Southbound in the outside lane. I'd never driven down this road before so was unaware of any unusual road/bus lane layout (but was observing & conforming to all viewable signage)

Coming up to the Hammersmith roundabout there was a high sided vehicle in the nearside bus lane, I followed the traffic past the vehicle and continued in the outside lane. I noticed the outside lane I was now on had became a very short stretch of red bus lane (I had seen no warning or signage of this). I could not avoid now being in this outside bus lane as the inside lane was now full of traffic so I took the shortest and safest route out of the bus lane which was only about 15 meters or so long.

Looking at the photos, video footage, viewing the layout on maps & in person the signage was obscured from my view behind/beside the high sided vehicle, it also appears the signage is placed after the start of the bus lane taper.

Upon further investigation it appears the layout of the bus lane is not compliant with the Department of Transport authorised diagram date stamped 24 January 2006 which clearly provides for a warning sign (along with other road markings) before the beginning of the bus lane taper.

Thus my reasons for challenging this PCN are:
1) Inadequate Signage I did not and could not have seen the sign due to being behind (and then beside) a large vehicle when I approached the 'outside' bus lane which obscured the view of the sign.
It appears inadequate that the restriction warning appears after the restriction has started.

2) *Unauthorised layout
The off-side sign is located in a different position to that indicated in the plan, to which the Secretary of State has given approval. Its location does not give sufficient warning of an impending off-side bus lane because the sign is located after the commencement of that bus lane.
* A DfT authorisation was given on 24th October 2006.
* This plan was changed in October 2006. Unauthorised.
* The changes include an extension of the taper so the warning sign now appears after taper begins; the removal of the deflection arrow; the lack of a solid white line to indicate the boundary of the lane & the removal of the KEEP CLEAR sign!

3) De minimis Any incursion in the 'bus lane was de minimis as I left the 'bus lane as soon as it was safe and prudent to do so.

4) The Contravention did not occur at the time stated on the PCN. The PCN states I was in the bus lane at (time) 18:15 (=18:15:00), I was not in the bus lane at this time (as shown in the video footage & photos).

Attached: Annotated photo from video, google street views & approved plan (to compare with actual layout)

I would appreciate if you could cancel this penalty charge without further issue & would also recommend better signage to warn the motorists of this easily hidden & confusing bus lane/road layout.


Thanks for your time.

[luke haig]

ok, about to submit this online. First option Im not sure which to select. Other?

I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention

There was no breach of the bus lane order

The vehicle was taken by a person without my consent

The police are already taking action

Other

[luke haig]

Ok - Representations now submitted online. Received confirmation.

Considering they took 4 MONTHS! to reply to the previous 'representation' I find it disgusting how they hold you to ransom and make you sweat it out:

"Thank you for your submission. Your case will be placed on hold until we respond to you, UNLESS the case has been passed to the enforcement agents for collection","..Once we have completed our investigation you will be notified in writing."


I hate the fact that if their next notification via post was to go missing then the case would automatically be passed to debt collectors.
It seems they do everything possible to make representations as long winded and off putting as possible.

[luke haig]

Spoke to them on the phone. almost 6 months since the original PCN, they say another 3 months to respond to the latest representation.
= 9 months since original PCN to find out if it gets sent to adjudication or not. Disgusting how they can make you hang like that, meanwhile at any point if their replay goes missing inthe post the next letter is probably bailiffs.

[CountryKerry]

I too received a ticket for going in this bus lane two years ago. I'm shocked the council have not sorted out the bus lane!

Interestingly, I think you have another case to make at the hearing. Your initial rejection letter is identical to the one I received two years ago. The council are meant to look at every individual appeal and respond to each point - they seem to be sending you out template letters.

I've just fired off an email to the council, expressing my distaste with them.

I should add I won at adjudication on the basis the sign is in the wrong place and the council were lying. Strangely, they haven't updated it yet!

[luke haig]

I'm so f*****g angry, it's DISGUSTING how much money they milk out of this obvious honey trap & how they keep you waiting like an idiot (has been about 9 months now since the initial PCN and im still awaiting a response to go to an adjudication.
When they are waiting for a reply they give you a 2 week window before serious fines etc, but when it comes to them responding - they estimate 3 months.
total bs.

I will update this thread when i next hear from them, how ridiculous how long they make this process. I should be within my rights to both cancel the ticket and issue them a fee for the time wasted.

[PASTMYBEST]

I'm so f*****g angry, it's DISGUSTING how much money they milk out of this obvious honey trap & how they keep you waiting like an idiot (has been about 9 months now since the initial PCN and im still awaiting a response to go to an adjudication.
When they are waiting for a reply they give you a 2 week window before serious fines etc, but when it comes to them responding - they estimate 3 months.
total bs.

I will update this thread when i next hear from them, how ridiculous how long they make this process. I should be within my rights to both cancel the ticket and issue them a fee for the time wasted.

Read the paragraph starting on the right of page 24 entitled conduct of the authorities.

http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HR...ND-03(2006).pdf

You can start to make an argument at about 3 months, so yours is getting stronger every day

2170145442

The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the Appellant’s vehicle entered the box junction in Commercial Road at its junction with Butchers Row, and then stopped in the junction owing to stationary traffic impeding its exit from the box.
　
The Appellant states in his notice of appeal that he responded within seven days of the original penalty charge notice but did not receive a notice of rejection until 23 March 2017 – nearly 5 months later and not within the 56 day period.
　
The 56 day time period to which the Appellant refers relates to parking contraventions and not moving traffic contraventions under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. There is no statutory time limit for applying to the representations to the penalty charge.
　
Nonetheless, the Appellant has clearly raised complaint as to the delay by the Authority in responding to his representations. Despite a lengthy case summary, the Authority have not advanced any explanation for this delay. Further the notice of rejection is also silent as to the delay.
　
Mindful of the decision in Davis the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea , I am not persuaded that in the light of such an unexplained period of delay the Authority are entitled to enforce the penalty and therefore the appeal is allowed.

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...ses/Davis41.pdf

[luke haig]

I called them today, they said it should take about another 4 weeks or sometime within the next 4 weeks.
They said they'd add a note to also email me but didn't have my email address as they were on a different computer.
I expressed my complaints but was obvious they were just there to take payments, or prolong the process etc.
No point me providing any other official complaint to them before they get around to responding to my previous representations.

[luke haig]

So now at around 8 months since original PCN I received via email.
Note: They did not include the mentioned 'reply to a previous motorists challenge':

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATION:




So. I assume now i re-present my entire case with diagrams and photographs to the 'london tribunals'.
I will add some further details to reflect the recent reply. Mainly being that the short stretch of buslane in the outside land is hidden by traffic until they turn away to the left hand lane. As soon as the cars moved aside & I could react to the ridiculously small bus lane I was now on, the safest option was to continue forward rather then stop dead in the middle of the rd.

Any additional advice or help appreciated. See previous posts for my full appeal, with diagrams, notes & photos

Thanks for your help!

[PASTMYBEST]

So now at around 8 months since original PCN I received via email.
Note: They did not include the mentioned 'reply to a previous motorists challenge':

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATION:




So. I assume now i re-present my entire case with diagrams and photographs to the 'london tribunals'.
I will add some further details to reflect the recent reply. Mainly being that the short stretch of buslane in the outside land is hidden by traffic until they turn away to the left hand lane. As soon as the cars moved aside & I could react to the ridiculously small bus lane I was now on, the safest option was to continue forward rather then stop dead in the middle of the rd.

Any additional advice or help appreciated. See previous posts for my full appeal, with diagrams, notes & photos

Thanks for your help!

You also add the unfairness caused by the procrastination over their response

[stamfordman]

They have reoffered the discount which tells us that they probably don't want to go to adjudication. It's footling contravention in a tiny bus lane and I would go for it. At least you'll get your 'day in court', so to speak. The delay is also a factor.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 18:01